Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing computable functions --- EEE(III)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 18:48:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f8638b87b68e331708798bac855a4a8f978ee166@i2pn2.org>
References: <vruvsn$3tamc$3@dont-email.me>
 <b30f38e665d23dc01c09381c00edbb015a493508@i2pn2.org>
 <vrv9ed$73q7$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:32:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1762229"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrv9ed$73q7$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3684
Lines: 65

On 3/25/25 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 4:16 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:24:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> Cannot possibly derive any outputs not computed from their inputs.
>> In particular, your HHH does not compute the behaviour of its input.
>>
>>> A Turing machine halt decider cannot possibly report on the behavior of
>>> any directly executing process.
>>> No Turing machine can every do this. This has always been beyond what
>>> any Turing machine can ever do.
>>> The best that any Turing machine halt decider can possibly do is
>>> determine the behavior that an input finite string specifies.
>> Which iiis... surprise, whatever happens when you run it. You are
>> basically saying that simulators can make shit up.
>>
>>> When an input finite string specifies a pathological relationship with
>>> its simulating halt decider the actual behavior that pathological
>>> relationship derives must be reported because THAT IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT
>>> IS SPECIFIED BY THIS INPUT FINITE STRING.
>> The relationship doesn't derive anything.
>> It is a tautology that a simulator reports what it reports. That doesn't
>> make that correct.
>>
> 
> EEE emulates a finite number of steps EEE including
> EEE emulating itself emulating III a finite number of times.
> 
> _III()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> III has different behavior when emulated by any EEE
> than when it is emulated by any other emulator.
> 
> When III is emulated by EEE it never reaches its
> final halt state.
> 
> When III is emulated by any other emulator it
> ALWAYS reaches its final halt state.
> 
> ALWAYS is the opposite of NEVER.
> 
> 

So?

Since you defined that EEE wasn't a UTM, its result is allowed to be 
subjective.

The behavior of III is, and always is, the behavior of its direct 
execution or the complete emulation of it by a REAL UTM, which for ALL 
your EEEs that only emulate a finite number of steps and then return 
will always be to HALT.

Note, none of those EEE ever showed the ACTUAL behavior of their input, 
as that is BY DEFINITION, the behavior of that emulation by the UTM.

You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about, and 
your stupidity to not see your ignorance.